Nationwide reducing many Savings rates on 1st September

2010

So 2008 and the aftermath didn`t happen.

What about the year before when Building Society Northern Rock hit the skids.

The bankers are still "at it".

bowlhead99

Lol, good way to answer the specific question. Grab your pitchforks and tin foil hats everyone!

Noble_Savage

2010 wrote: »

What about the year before when Building Society Northern Rock hit the skids.

Northern Rock wasn't a building society.


Thanks for playing.

eskbanker

Noble_Savage wrote: »

Northern Rock wasn't a building society.


Thanks for playing.

Unfortunately the lynch mob don't tend to deal in minor irritants like facts!

jsinc

eskbanker wrote: »

I'm not planning to cut and paste the whole thing so read it for yourself, but worth noting for perspective and context that their asset base is £209 billion and also

Nationwide's all about its mutuality; which is why they've explicitly prioritised BTL loan asset growth to the detriment of new/existing owner-occupiers and most members esp via TMW, and Bank of England policy (and the taxpayer) has explicitly had to account for their book including mispriced legacy tracker mortgages.

2010

Noble_Savage wrote: »

Northern Rock wasn't a building society.
Thanks for playing.

NR was originally a B/soc.

Noble_Savage

2010 wrote: »

NR was originally a B/soc.

...and hadn't been a building society for a number of years when it encountered difficulties in 2007/08.


It was a bank. Owned by shareholders. Doing bank-y things, in a bank-y way.


In fact, it's likely that if NR had remained a building society and stuck to that business model, rather than raising funds in the wholesale market to support increasing levels of lending (which is what banks like NR tended to do), then it wouldn't have struggled.


The effective closure of the money markets was bad news for banks like NR. It wasn't great news for larger building societies either, but it's a massive stretch to say that societies "wrecked the economy" to use your phrase.


But again, thanks for helping me to make my point.

2010

Noble_Savage wrote: »

.
It was a bank. Owned by shareholders. Doing bank-y things, in a bank-y way.

Exactly my point and that`s why it virtually went bankrupt!

Noble_Savage

2010 wrote: »

Exactly my point and that`s why it virtually went bankrupt!

Actually I believe it was an issue of liquidity rather than solvency, so I'm not sure "virtually went bankrupt" is technically correct, but I'll let that go.


Your points at 7.43am this morning and 9.22pm last night, on a thread dedicated to Nationwide *Building Society* was that "these are the very people who got us into this mess in the first place" and "the bankers are still at it".


I've explained to you that building societies are different to banks, and should not shoulder the same blame.


I notice you still haven't responded to the points raised in bowlhead99's post from yesterday afternoon. Any thoughts?

bowlhead99

Noble_Savage wrote: »

I notice you still haven't responded to the points raised in bowlhead99's post from yesterday afternoon. Any thoughts?

Please let's not go there again

If you're interested in his/her views on what i said, you could just re-read this thread from last spring with the same participants and same arguments presented:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67853626#Comment_67853626

I don't expect either side has changed its mind since then. The financial services game is all crooked, or perhaps not all crooked, depending on your perspective. Typically your perspective depends whether you're willing to take an interest in the issues or would prefer to just be outraged by headlines.

According to 2010s views, on this thread and others over last few weeks or months

- we should all have dumped Nationwide because they're bad guys out to screw us over; they dare to make profits to safeguard the business for their members and have no good products (if you ignore the decent range of current accounts, regular saver accounts, mortgages, credit cards and loans and the fact that pay a higher rate on instant access savings for longstanding customers than new customers)

- we should dump our Santander accounts to teach them a lesson for offering a top interest paying current account for a number of years and then eventually lowering its rate when the base rate was cut.

- we should avoid Halifax because they're a terrible bank, only giving a free fiver to their customers every month if your have some cash in there for a few minutes a month, but this reward should rightly be substantially increased. Or it's not fair because 2010 structured his/her affairs to grab the free fiver without really using the accoun for more than ten secondst and by rights the reward for doing that should be more.